The Cookie Controversy

A photo of K-pop girl group NewJeans /Courtesy of ADOR

By Scott Shepherd

The past month has seen a controversy erupt surrounding the newly debuted K-pop group NewJeans, most members of which are under 19, as listeners complain that the lyrics of their song "Cookie" have sexual undertones.

It's important to note at the outset that none of this is likely the fault of the band members. They are simply teenagers who are probably ― like most K-pop artists ― bound by contracts to sing and dance in whatever way their agency tells them to. Whatever the issues with the lyrics, the band members themselves most likely bear no blame.

As The Korea Times reported in late August, the company's defense focused on the word "cookie," which apparently is used as sexual slang in some parts of the world. I confess that I had never heard the word used in this way, and I presume that most of the song's listeners hadn't either.

Reading the long response from ADOR, the agency of NewJeans, it seems that they also had no idea that the word is sometimes used in this way. It clearly bothered them. They state that they consulted "English professors, professional interpreters, translators and native speakers," who suggested that the understanding of the word "cookie" as sexual slang "isn't a commonplace interpretation".

I completely agree. I have never heard or read that word used in a sexual way.

However, the company is missing the wider point about the song. Literary texts often focus on a concept or word and employ that as a metaphor ― and of course, sometimes that metaphor is sexual. That is true for literature in general, but it is especially the case with songs, even more so with pop songs, and even more especially with K-pop songs.

If a text employs a sexual metaphor, it doesn't really matter whether that word is used commonly in the same way elsewhere. You don't necessarily need to research the use of the word "flea" in early modern England to see that John Donne's poem contains sexual imagery, just as you don't need to look anything up about the word "milkshake" to understand that the 2003 song by Kelis is about more than cold beverages.

In the same way, when a member of a K-pop girl group sings, "Made a little cookie / Come and take a lookie […] Come get some," or, "That's how you like it, ain't that right?" or "Bet you want some," it's hardly a surprise that hearers interpret these lines as having sexual connotations.

Defenders of the song have argued that the Korean lyrics are less suggestive than the English translation. I'm not convinced, but even if that's true, the company's own translation of the Korean parts into English is full of innuendo. And if we can ignore that too, the English parts of the song are still loaded enough to make it a problem: "If you want it, you can get it" and "Take it, don't break it, I wanna see you taste it" are hardly innocent lines.

Even if we accept that the label seems to have honestly had no idea that the lyrics are suggestive, it reacted poorly to the criticism. Rather than actually considering whether the song really does have sexual implications, it pulled a Donald Trump move, inappropriately brushing off legitimate concerns and targeting critics instead.

In the company's response, it accuses the song's critics of stirring up "controversy for its own sake but under the deceptive guise of protecting minors." It even goes further by actually suggesting that the detractors are themselves the problem: "We're worried whether we'll be able to deal with each and every harmful interpretation with malicious intent behind it for that reason. After all, a toxic perspective can take something harmless and see it as something that's anything but." Indeed, ADOR is taking a particularly litigious approach, threatening and apparently taking legal action against its critics.

It's a shame that this kind of aggressive response seems to be the new way to deal with faux pas in public. Accepting criticism is always hard, but the company is stooping pretty low by suggesting that the people expressing some very real concerns have a "toxic perspective" or "malicious intent."

So, apart from its statement, what can the company do in response? There are, I suppose, two options. One choice is just to keep going and continue clinging to the claim that there's nothing sexual in the lyrics. It's possible that the company representatives really do believe their own claims and that they see this whole hullabaloo as entirely unfair to them.

But I want to be really clear that the company is wrong. Whatever the writers' intentions, this song can easily be interpreted as containing sexual undertones.

The company's other option, and the right thing to do, is to take down the video and remove it from the group's repertoire. Of course, doing so would be a hugely expensive and painful move for the company: the song is very popular, and the music video has already garnered 12 million YouTube views in a month. More than that, the act of taking down the song could be interpreted by some as an implicit acknowledgement that the company had inadvertently sexualized minors. This would of course be a terrible thing for anyone, and it's hardly a surprise that the company has fought back so strongly against the accusations.

But they can still save face: all they need to do is write another statement along the same lines as the first, explaining that they had no ill intentions and blaming the issue on the interpretation of a few malignant listeners; they can say that they withdrew the song "to avoid distraction" or "to prevent the misinterpretations of our detractors," or something along those lines. It would be so easy. The financial aspect is of course more painful, but that shouldn't really be a consideration in this kind of case.

However, it's also clear that the issue is not just confined to this one song. The conflicts around "Cookie" bring up much bigger questions about the sexualization and exploitation of young people in K-pop. In fact, part of ADOR's defense is that "other teenage groups have similar lineups" of young girls ― as if this is any kind of justification.

I am making no allegations against ADOR in particular, but within the K-pop industry as a whole there is a common and extremely disturbing blurring of lines when it comes to the sexualization of the stars. Adults are often infantilized by wearing (sexualized) school uniforms, and conversely, underage teenagers often wear clothes and makeup which make them appear far older than they are. Moreover, the objectification of K-pop singers, whether they are teenagers or young adults, is a moral and cultural problem that needs to be rectified. K-pop singers and wannabes are humans after all.

I do hope that ADOR has the courage and integrity to do the right thing and take down the song. I also hope that this is a catalyst that leads to a wider change in K-pop, bringing about clearer boundaries and more protections for everyone working in the industry, and especially for the children and teenagers.

Dr. Scott Shepherd is a British-American academic. He has taught in universities in the U.K. and Korea, and is currently an assistant professor of English at Chongshin University in Seoul. The views expressed in the article are the author's own and do not reflect the editorial direction of The Korea Times.